Navigate:

Gay marriage pressure back on Obama

Obama has never said that the Constitution could protect the right of gays to marry. | AP photo composite by POLITICO

In the justices’ order Friday, they did not ask the administration to offer views on the Prop. 8 case. However, court watchers believe several of the justices could put the question of whether there is a federal right to gay-marriage directly to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

That’s even more likely if the DOMA case, in which the administration will be arguing, is heard by the court at about the same time as the California gay-marriage ban. The cases are expected to be scheduled for late March, though no dates have been announced.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The campaign to get Obama, the White House and the Justice Department behind a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage seemed to kick off in earnest on Friday when a prominent lawyer in the fight against Prop. 8 said he’d like to see Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder get off the sidelines in that case.

“Given the stand that the president of the United States and the attorney general of the United States have made with respect to marriage equality, we would certainly hope that they would participate,” Ted Olson said during a conference call with reporters.

“I’m quite confident that if they did participate they would support our position in this case, that the denial of equal rights is subject to close scrutiny by the courts and cannot withstand that scrutiny,” said Olson, solicitor general under President George W. Bush and the lawyer most likely to argue the pro-gay-marriage side when the justices hear the Prop. 8 case. While Olson and his team urged the high court not to take the case, he’s made clear that now that it has, his team will make a full-court press for the justices to affirm a federal right to gay marriage.

Prop. 8 proponents didn’t echo the call for the Obama administration to weigh in, but did say that the only position it could take consistent with the president’s public statements would be to affirm the state of California’s right to ban gay marriage.

“President Obama has been clear that the states have the right to retain the traditional definition of marriage. The Department of Justice should adhere to the president’s views,” attorney Andrew Pugno told POLITICO via e-mail. Pugno is one of the lawyers for the Prop. 8 defenders who asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Obama has never explicitly rejected the notion that the U.S. Constitution could protect the right of gays and lesbians to marry, but his repeated description of the issue as one traditionally and best handled by states seems to undercut the idea that the Supreme Court should declare a federal right to same-sex marriage.

“I’ve just concluded that — for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now, I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue,” Obama said in his May interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts.

no pressure at all to the president. i think the supreme court will put an end to the whole gay marraige issue once and for all. clearly DOMA is unconstitutional and prop 8 can bee seen as the same as when states barred interracial marraige. BOTH ARE GOING DOWN!

Despite the tone of the article, one thing is clear, marriage equality has a much better chance of evolving under a Democratic administration, than it would have had with Republicans in the White House.

As polling makes quite clear, same-sex marriage will happen in America. It is just a matter of time. It is also no secret that more Americans are now coming out. In the last election, 6.4% of 18-29 voters identified as lgbt, double the number from 30-49 and triple the over-65 voters. As the electorate ages, it will only lead to a more pro-gay consensus, and a larger voting minority.

The question is not whether marriage equality, and full gay civil rights, will come to America. It is only a question of how soon.

In the same way that the Bible was wrongly used to condemn inter-racial marriage and justify slavery, it is also wrongly used to justify discrimination against gays today.

Whichever politician chooses to be on the wrong side of history, by opposing same-sex marriage, will find that they will only become increasingly politically irrelevant with the passage of time. I think President Obama will factor that in, when choosing a way to move forward.

Marriage. Not found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence; by the way Union is but not in this context. So it would seem that the question come down to the rights of people that we grant belong to everyone equally. Now I don't much care for what others consider important factors in determining whether a marriage is a marriage, a civil union, or a terrible mistake. If I did, I would have consulted you regarding my own marriage, and if I need someone to protect my marriage I won't be looking to the federal government for help.

If the Supreme Court decides that all persons in the United States have the same rights as others then I can live with that. If the Supreme Court decides that the federal government can define the rights of some to be less than those of others, I would think it a bad decision that will eventually be over-turned in time when the intelligence and wisdom of the nation reaches a marginally higher level. But it would seem only fair that if the Supreme Court decides that one class of citizens is not to the the same rights as another class then they should receive an appropriate and sufficient compensation for the loss of those rights. Afterall, what American doesn't in their heart believe that there will be a price to pay if you try and take away their freedoms?

"If the Supreme Court decides that all persons in the United States have the same rights as others then I can live with that. "

Gays already had those same rights...the right to live/sleep with whoever they want, the right to adopt, the right to will property to whomever, the right have input on medical decisions (power of attorney), etc.

The only thing they didn't have was a right to spousal Social Security survivor benefits.

Whereas there might be some who admire you for fighting so reliably and diligently for causes that you know you cannot win, others will simply see you as a loser who refuses to admit he’s lost, and who, pathetically, keeps on flailing.

I merely see you as a sad failure who just fights (poorly) for the sake of fighting.